Looking for growth


I don't understand. I just spent the last 3 years of my life studying economics and all I acquired was lots of ideas about economic theories and learnt some very simple models to explain economic growth accompanied by some high school mathematical skills. When I came to start my master, I was really excited of what was waiting for me. The last year I studied (in North America) was less mathematical and way more intuitive then the two first I had back in Europe. I had interesting classes about issues on economic development in poor countries or the economics of the environment. Anyway. To summarize, I had great hopes about starting my master. However, all I got here is just some more basic mathematical skills in order to explain the same models that they somehow came up with. 
I'm not asking for complexity but I'm wondering about the point of studying economics any further (except getting a higher paid job which is not my goal). I could understand that you should spend the three first of your studies trying to understand the actual economic system and get a job with that knowledge. But what disappoints me is the fact that during the next two years we are asked to do the same without learning any specially new about it. Just "deeper" intuitions.
I have the opinion that economics is still a science but a social science with all its limits. I just can't understand why we study it like we were physicists looking at an atom, as if economic rules were the only truth there can be. We are never taught to put things into perspectives, like they say "outside the box". The thing is that WE are making the box. WE are the ones deciding the rules. We are currently using economics to describe past events and how we ended up here. We are also trying to give some predictions about future economic variables (at which we are very bad at since we are our self-prophetists and we don't even know we're going to want in 24 hours). But we are never asked to be creative, to design a completely brand new political, social and economical system based upon what we learned. We let those tasks to philosophists (no wonder why they are marginalized). We are satisfied with the statu quo, trying to escape from the economic growth slowdown without seeing the potential GROWTH of another sort.
Okay, okay. I should not be so harsh with my fellow economists 'because their studies have shown lots of benefits in the past. But now in Western coutries like ours, do we still need better standards of living or is it another kind of growth that we are looking for ? For sure, we need money but we should not forget that we value as well social interactions (which is the most important component of my happiness), inner peace, good health, leisure, music, cinema, art... Well freedom in general.
Using the usual consensus that time is money, we are selling our time to buy more freedom for which we don't have enough time for !
Back to the box-thinking, personally I chose to study economics to achieve somehow a better distribution of wealth on this planet and I live hoping that I could somehow enhance the welfare of some human beings or any other non-human animals. Well, I guess not like every student studying economics. But even if we assume (which is wrong) that business people are totally selfish, it is in their own interest to strive for personal growth. This latter might be correlated to your income level but only to a certain point. That's why there is no trend within rich countries during the last 50 years concerning life satisfaction and that in fact differences can only be seen accross countries.

Anyway. All I'm asking is an personal introspection, find out what we value in life, assess if our time/money (for economists it's the same but personnally I just have time to offer... no money :P) and see how this could affect the way we think about models. Or better create new models which help growing spiritually and socially as human beings since economic growth nowadays only help poor countries. So that's it. I'm not asking for much. I'm just asking you to find your own perception of life.

Keep smiling.

D.S.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

I wish I read this five years ago: The Defining Decade by Meg Jay

There are books which you wished you had read a long time ago. The Defining Decade by Meg Jay is one of those. Based on her therapeutic experience with young adults, she relates how important our twenties are for the rest of our lives and what factors which should take into consideration in order to have a fulfilling adult life. So my advice is to watch her TED talk , read a short but exhaustive summary , use my flash cards or simply read her book . =) Cheers, D.
Read more

We are our memories

We are our memories. Aren't we ? Certainly, we don't remember much of what we experienced in the past or at least not our life in its entirety. What we tend to remember is the beginning, the end of an experience as well as its peak and low point. This is particularly interesting when you make a decision (for instance choose where to go on vacation). Daniel Kahneman explains it very well in his TED talk . However I want to discuss a specific domain of our memories: personal knowledge. I do not only mean the classes which we (are supposed to) remember from our school time. I also want to talk about the learning process which we undergo every day and makes us who we are. Every book we read, every encounter we have, every thought we create can become a life lesson and thus progressively influence our life for the best or for the worst. As Matthieu Ricard says, the quality of a teaching can be found in the degree by which this latter becomes part of your life. In my case, somet
Read more

Veganism and the either-or fallacy

My vegan friends are gonna hate what I'm writing here. Don't get me wrong. I support veganism. All else equal, less suffering is better than more . However I am not sure whether the strategy behind veganism is the most effective. I would argue that veganism falls into the trap of the either-or fallacy .  That is, you can either be a meat eater, failed vegan (vegetarian) or vegan. This rationale totally neglects the quantity of meat and animal products in general which a person consumes. We should recognize that someone who eats meat once a week has a 14 times smaller impact than someone who eats meat for every meal. This tendency to be absolute can create a sense of moral superiority which is not beneficial to the vegan cause. Though necessary sometimes, the division of individuals between vegans and non-vegans can lead to an implicit in group/out group separation , us versus them. In other words, the belief of one's "purity" in terms of food consumption can sc
Read more